# Gaming and fintech merchant legal-opinion reliance policy

_Adoption by [Institution]’s board or risk committee. Version 2026-10-07.1._

> Template for the institution’s own counsel to adapt. Not legal advice, not tailored to any institution, and no attorney–client relationship is created by using it. Apparently Law reviews opinions only for the relying institution and never advises the merchant whose opinion it reviews.

## 1. Purpose

This policy sets the conditions on which [Institution] relies on a merchant’s legal opinion to onboard and keep serving merchants whose products involve gaming, prediction markets, money transmission, securities or commodities. It forms part of [Institution]’s policies and procedures for restricted transactions (12 CFR 233.6) and its customer due diligence and third-party risk management programs.

## 2. Scope

Real-money and social casino games; sweepstakes and dual-currency games; promotional contests; skill games; daily fantasy and pick’em contests; sports and event wagering; event contracts and prediction markets; and money transmission, stored value, rewards, token and trading features offered by a merchant or its program manager.

## 3. Requirement

No in-scope merchant is onboarded, and no in-scope product is enabled in a jurisdiction, until [Institution] holds a Verified Opinion for it: a reasoned legal opinion reviewed for [Institution] by independent reviewing counsel under the Verified Opinion Standard, with each fact the opinion relies on tested against the merchant’s systems.

A fact the opinion states but that cannot be measured is recorded as stated, not as verified, and does not by itself support enabling a jurisdiction.

## 4. Independence

Reviewing counsel is engaged by [Institution], acts only for [Institution], and has no engagement with the merchant on the subject of the opinion. Where this policy permits the merchant to fund the review, the fee is fixed and paid before the outcome, and [Institution] remains the only client (ABA Model Rule 1.8(f)).

## 5. Ongoing monitoring

The facts behind each Verified Opinion are re-measured continuously and brought down at least every [twelve (12)] months. A change in law or in the merchant’s product that affects an opinion triggers a re-review.

A fact that no longer holds opens a cure window of [fourteen (14)] days, notified to [BSA Officer / Merchant Risk]. An uncured finding is escalated to [Risk Committee], which may suspend the affected product in the affected jurisdictions or exit the relationship.

## 6. Records

For each merchant, [Institution] keeps the examiner file: the opinion relied on (by hash), the review decisions and reviewing counsel’s independence attestation, the evidence summary, the monitoring and cure log, remedial actions, reliance grants and revocations, and the chain of custody. Records are kept at least [five (5)] years (31 CFR 1010.430) and longer under a legal hold.

Beneficial ownership identification and verification (31 CFR 1010.230) is performed under [Institution]’s own CIP/CDD program and is outside the review.

## 7. Roles

[Merchant Risk] owns onboarding under this policy. [BSA Officer] receives cure notices and escalations. [Risk Committee] decides exceptions and exits, and reviews this policy at least annually.

## 8. Exceptions

An exception to this policy requires the written approval of [Risk Committee], a stated expiry, and an entry in the examiner file.